© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
1

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
2

1960’s
The U.S. Supreme Court sped up the process of guaranteeing individual rights in the face of criminal prosecution.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
3

th
th
th
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
4

• People must be secure in their homes.
• People must also be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
5

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
• Weeks is suspected of selling lottery tickets through the mail.
• Weeks’ home is searched.
• His personal property is confiscated.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
6

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
• Weeks’ attorney asked that personal property be returned.
• Federal judge agreed that some of Weeks’ property should be returned.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
7

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
8

Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Supreme Court Decision:
• If some of Weeks’ property had been illegally seized, then the remainder of the property is also considered to be illegally seized.
• This case established the exclusionary rule.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
9

•
•
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
10

Silverthorne Lumber
Co. v. U.S. (1918)
• Silverthorne was accused of not paying taxes.
• Federal agents wanted the company books.
• Silverthorne refused to turn over books.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
11

Silverthorne Lumber
Co. v. U.S. (1918)
• Feds seized the books without a warrant.
• Silverthorne asked for books to be returned.
• The prosecutor returned the books.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
12

Silverthorne Lumber Co.
v. U.S. (1918
• Before the prosecutor returned the papers, he made copies.
• Silverthorne was convicted.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
13

Silverthorne Lumber Co.
v. U.S. (1918)
• The U.S. Supreme Court decided to overturn the conviction.
• They ruled that evidence illegally seized cannot be used in a trial, therefore, neither can evidence which derives from an illegal seizure.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
14

U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)
• Rabinowitz was arrested on a federal warrant for selling altered postage stamps to defraud collectors.
• The officers did not have a search warrant.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
15

U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)
• Officers searched the office including the desk, the file cabinet, and the safe, finding 573 altered stamps.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
16

U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)
• Rabinowitz was convicted.
• The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the search was acceptable .
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
17

U.S. v. Rabinowitz (1950)
• The Fourth Amendment provides against unreasonable searches, but the search of the one room office following a legal arrest was alright.
• The Fourth Amendment protects people , not places .
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
18

• Earl Warren 1953 - 1969
• Warren Burger 1969 - 1986
• William Rehnquist 1986 - present
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
19

The Warren court charted a course that would guarantee nationwide recognition of individual rights by all levels of the criminal justice system.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
20

•
• Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
21

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• Mapp was suspected of hiding a bombing suspect.
• Mapp refused police admittance.
• Police forced their way in, showing Mapp a paper they said was a search warrant for her house.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
22

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• Mapp grabbed the “warrant” and placed it inside her blouse.
• Police retrieved the
“warrant” and searched house.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
23

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• Police found pornographic material in a trunk in the basement.
• The bombing suspect was not found .
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
24

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• Mapp was convicted of possession of pornographic material.
• No search warrant was produced at the trial.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
25

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• U.S. Supreme Court decided:
14th Amendment due process applied to local police, not just federal officers.
• Evidence against Mapp was illegally obtained.
• Overturned conviction based on inadmissibility of the evidence.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
26

)
• Chimel is convicted of burglarizing a coin shop based on evidence gathered at his arrest.
• Police have an arrest warrant, but did not have a search warrant.
• Police search his whole house, including the garage, attic, and little workshop.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
27

)
• Police realize the search might be contested.
• Police feel they can justify the search as part of the arrest process , not to gather evidence.
• Searches prior to arrest are necessary for police officer protection and should not require a search warrant.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
28

Chimel v.
lifornia (1969 )
• Chimel is convicted.
• U.S. Supreme Court the case and decided that the search became invalid when it went beyond the arrested person’s area of “immediate control.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
29

)
Officers may search:
• the arrested person
• the area under the arrested person’s “immediate control”
Officers can search for following reasons:
• to protect themselves
• to prevent destruction of evidence
• to keep defendant from escaping
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
30

Adherence to the principle that criminal defendants, in claiming violations of their due process right…
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
31

...need to bear the responsibility of showing that the police went beyond the law in the performance of their duties.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
32

U.S. v. Leon (1984)
• Leon is placed under surveillance for drug trafficking.
• Police obtain a search warrant based on their observation of
Leon.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
33

U.S. v. Leon (1984)
• Police search Leon’s homes and discover drugs.
• Leon is convicted of drug trafficking.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
34

U.S. v. Leon (1984)
• Federal court overturns the case based on lack of probable cause.
• State appeals to U.S. Supreme
Court.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
35

U.S. v. Leon (1984)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision:
When law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith, the evidence they have collected should be admissible even if later it is found the warrant was invalid.
“ good faith exception to exclusionary rule”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
36

continuing the trend of the
Burger Court in having defendants bear the burden of proving violations of due process rights
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
37

Illinois v. Krull (1987)
U.S. Supreme Court held that the good-faith exception applied to warrantless searches supported by state law even where the state statute was later found to violate
Fourth Amendment rights.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
38

Illinois v. Rodriquez (1990)
• Gail Fisher complained to the police that she had been assaulted.
• Police accompanied her to the apartment where she said the assault took place.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
39

Illinois v. Rodriquez (1990)
• Gail Fisher used her key to open the door of the apartment and admit the police.
• Police arrested the suspect sleeping on the couch and found drugs lying on the floor by the couch.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
40

Illinois v. Rodriquez (1990)
• Rodriquez was convicted.
• On appeal, Rodriquez argued that Fisher had not lived in the apartment for over a month and therefore had no legal control over the apartment.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
41

Illinois v. Rodriquez (1990)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision: rejected appeal based on fact that there is no Fourth
Amendment violation if police reasonably believed at the time of the entry that
Fisher had legal access to the apartment
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
42

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
43

Harris v. U.S. (1968)
• Harris’ vehicle is impounded by police.
• Police inventory contents of vehicle.
• Evidence of a robbery is found.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
44

Harris v. U.S. (1968)
• Harris is arrested and convicted.
• Harris appeals his conviction.
• The conviction is based on illegal search of vehicle.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
45

U.S. Supreme Court Decision: appeal rejected
Justification:
Objects falling in “plain view” of an officer, who has the right to be in the position to have the view, are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
46

Police can use evidence if they observe it during emergencies such as:
• crimes in progress
• fires
• accidents
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
47

The plain view doctrine applies only to sightings by the police under legal circumstances .
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
48

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
Hicks is arrested when police enter his apartment to check a report of a gun being fired.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
49

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
• Police see two stereo systems in a corner of the room that they believe may be stolen.
• Police write down serial number of first stereo because it is plainly visible.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
50

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
• Second stereo has to be moved to see serial number.
• Stereos have been reported as stolen.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
51

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
• Hicks is convicted of robbery based on the seized stereos.
• Hicks appeals his conviction.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
52

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
Supreme Court Decision: overturned conviction
Justification:
Officer’s behavior became illegal when he moved the stereo to record serial number.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
53

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
Persons have a
“reasonable expectation of privacy,” which means that officers lacking a search warrant…
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
54

Arizona v. Hicks (1987)
… even when invited into the residence, must act more like guests than inquisitors.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
55

Horton v. California (1990)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
56

Horton v. California (1990)
• No jewelry was found, but guns were seized.
• Horton was convicted of robbery based in part on the seized guns.
• Horton appealed based on fact that if police suspected Horton had guns, they should have listed them in the warrant.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
57

Supreme Court Decision: rejected appeal
Justification:
Even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate plain view seizures, it is not a necessary condition .
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
58

Three threats provide justification for emergency warrantless searches.
• Clear dangers to life.
• Clear dangers of escape.
• Clear dangers of removal or destruction of evidence .
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
59

Warden v. Hayden (1967)
• There was a report that a robber fled into a building.
• The police search residence without a warrant.
• The defendant was convicted.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
60

Warden v. Hayden (1967)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Supreme Court Decision: rejected appeal of illegal search
Justification:
“4th Amendment does not require police to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.”
61

© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
62

U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)
“Free-to-Leave” Test
U.S. Supreme Court said:
“A person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the
Fourth Amendment only if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, …
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
63

U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)
... a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
64

• Historically, the fleeing felon doctrine dictated the use of force.
• Deadly force could be used to apprehend any fleeing felony suspect.
• This was law in most states until 1960’s.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
65

Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Landmark Case
• Terry was believed to be “casing” a store for a robbery.
• A police veteran of 39 years conducted a “pat-down” search of Terry.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
66

Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Landmark Case
• A gun was found on
Terry.
• The officer testified that the “man did not look right.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
67

Terry v. Ohio (1968)
• Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.
• Terry appealed based on fact that the officer had no probable cause to search.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
68

Terry v. Ohio (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision
: appeal rejected
Stop and frisk requires reasonable suspicion, the facts must lead officers to suspect that crimes may be occurring, and that suspects may be armed.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
69

Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Justification:
“We cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
70

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
• Timothy Dickerson was seen leaving a building known for trafficking cocaine.
• Minneapolis police stopped Dickerson after they observed him acting suspiciously.
• A pat-down search revealed no weapons, but it did reveal a small lump in his jacket.
• Police suspected the lump was cocaine.
• Officer retrieved a lump of crack cocaine.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
71

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
“The officer never thought the lump was a weapon, but did not immediately recognize it as cocaine.”
The lump was determined to be cocaine only after the officer squeezed, slid, and otherwise manipulated the pocket’s contents.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
72

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
The court took the position that the police went far beyond
Terry v. Ohio.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
73

Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision: conviction overturned
Justification:
“If an officer lawfully pats down a suspect’s outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes it immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
74

Brown v. Texas (1979)
• Two police officers stopped Brown and asked for identification.
• Brown refused to provide identification and was arrested for failing to properly identify himself.
• Brown was convicted.
• Brown appealed based on an illegal stop.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
75

Brown v. Texas (1979)
Officers testified that
Brown was not acting suspiciously, nor did they think he had a weapon.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
76

Brown v. Texas (1979)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision: conviction overturned
Justification:
Under the circumstances, since there was no reason to stop
Brown, he could not be punished for refusing to identify himself.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
77

Smith v. Ohio (1990)
• Smith was approached by two plain clothes officers who asked Smith to “come here a minute.”
• Smith kept walking until the police identified themselves.
• Smith put a paper bag he was carrying on the hood of his
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
car to keep it from the police.
78

Smith v. Ohio (1990)
• The police inspected the bag and found marijuana and arrested Smith for possession.
• Smith was convicted.
• Smith appealed.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
79

Smith v. Ohio (1990)
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
U.S. Supreme Court: overturned conviction
Justification:
An individual has the right to protect his belongings from an unwarranted search, because, in this case, there was little reason to stop the suspect and because control over the bag was not thought necessary for the officer’s protection.
80

Carroll v. U.S. (1925)
• The first U.S. Supreme Court case to involve an automobile.
• U.S. Supreme Court ruled a warrantless search of an automobile is valid if based on a reasonable belief that contraband is present.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
81

Police need to gather information through many sources.
• informants
• police interrogation
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
82

In the case of informants, there is a two-pronged test that can be used to establish probable cause.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
83

• The source of the informant’s information is made clear.
• The police officer has a reasonable belief that the informant is reliable.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
84

interrogation - Any behaviors “that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
85

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
• Danny Escobedo is arrested, without a warrant, for the murder of his brother-in-law.
• Danny makes no statements during the initial interrogation and is released.
• A few weeks later, someone identifies
Danny as the murderer.
• Danny is, again, brought in for interrogation
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
86

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
• Danny is told they “have him cold.”
• Danny asks to see his lawyer and is told he cannot since the interrogation is underway.
• Danny’s lawyer arrives and asks to see his client but is told he has to wait until questioning is complete.
• Meanwhile, Danny is told that his lawyer does not want to see him.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
87

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
• Danny confesses to the crime.
• Danny is convicted and appeals his conviction.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
88

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
Decision: conviction overturned
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
89

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
Justification:
Escobedo is entitled to counsel at police interrogations to protect his rights, and counsel should be provided when the defendant desires.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
90

Miranda v Arizona (1966)
• Ernesto Miranda was arrested in
Phoenix, Arizona and was accused of kidnapping and rape.
• Miranda was identified by the victim.
• Miranda was interrogated for two hours, signed a confession ,and was convicted.
• He appealed his conviction to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
91

Miranda v Arizona (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court Decision: conviction overturned
Justification:
“ The entire aura and atmosphere of police interrogation, without notification of rights and an offer of assistance of counsel, tends to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner.”
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
92

• right to privacy issues
• body cavity searches
• electronic eavesdropping
• electronic evidence
© 2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc.
93